SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.1996, rendered by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide which it dismissed the appeal against the order of ejectment dated 8.12.1995 rendered by the Rent Controller, Amritsar.
(2.) JASWINDER Kaur was originally the owner-landlady in respect of the demised premises as fully detailed, in the rent petition. She created tenancy, in respect of the demised premises, in favour of the petitioner-tenant on 1.5.1987, at a monthly rental of Rs. 54/- vide rent note dated 9.11.1987. Jaswinder Kaur sold the demised premises, in favour of the respondents- landlords. The petitioner-tenant became tenant of the respondents-landlords, by operation of law. The ejectment of the petitioner-tenant, was sought, on the grounds, that he had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent from 1.10.1990 onwards; that he committed such acts as materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, and that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement, filed by the petitioner-tenant, the relationship of landlord-tenant was denied. The locus standi of the landlords-respondents in filing the application was challenged. It was admitted that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Jaswinder Kaur, in the demised premises. It was stated that he tendered the arrears of rent from 1.10.1990 to 31.7.1992, on the first date of hearing, and, as such, this ground for ejectment did not survive. It was denied that he committed such acts as materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. It was also denied that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issued were struck :- "1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPP 2. Whether the applicants have no locus standi to file the present application ? OPP 3. Whether the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the applicants is a forged and fabricated documents as alleged in the written statement ? OPR 4. Whether the application is liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC ? OPR 5. Whether the tender made by the respondent on the first date of hearing is short ? OPR 6. Whether the respondent has made such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises ? OPA 7. Whether the premises in dispute have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 8. Relief." ;